I didn’t want to hijack this thread, but this is kind of a splinter question. As someone who’s never read Watchmen but would like to try, I’ve been scanning that thread (trying to avoid obvious spoilers but probably failing… ah well). And Dio’s post struck me:
So to repeat, I too have wanted to start Watchmen because I’ve heard so many amazing things about it. But I’m in a fairly similar position to Dio, as the only GN I’ve read was Maus, while, unlike him, I used to love certain superhero comics like the Legion of Super Heroes but stopped ages ago*. DC only, by the way; for some reason the Marvel heroes never did it for me. Preferred Superman over Batman, too.
My question is: if Watchman is holding a mirror to the genre, at least as it was at the time, will someone who’s pretty much not part of the genre appreciate it?
(Also, I gotta ask: Jackie Earle Haley? For realsies? As in the kid from the Bad News Bears and other more shlocky '70s flicks?)
I hate to date myself, but if it helps, the last storyline I remember reading was Braniac 5 going ‘rogue’ from the LSH and unleashing some scary creature called, uh, Omegaman or somethin’ like that, which was the product of his hate and resentment on the other LSHers. I was so disappointed – Braniac 5 was always my favorite! – that I got a bit bitter and gave up. Also I was getting into my teens and in my day it wasn’t ‘cool’ for teen girls to read boy comics, so I was embarrassed to purchase any more. Trufax.
I read ‘The Watchmen’ a couple of years ago. I have little knowledge of comics beyond what one would pick up by watching movies about them, usually long after the fact. I appreciated Watchmen without always enjoying it–my taste in mysteries runs to the “cozy” side, where it’s sufficient that the person is dead–no need to describe in detail what happened to him. The Watchmen is not intended for that cozy feeling–it is intended to unnerve you and make you think. I don’t doubt that someone else could pick up on a bunch more layers than I did, but the layers I did were worth appreciating.
As in the 2007 Best Supporting Actor Oscar nominee, yes. Oh, and winner of awards for the same role from the Chicago Film Critics Association, the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, the Online Film Critics Society, the San Francisco Film Critics Circle, and the Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards.
I’m a big Watchmen fan, choie, and I think this describes me too. I’ve seen plenty of comic book based movies and TV shows - “Batman” was one of my first words, I’m told - but my comic book reading was basically confined to the odd X-Men issue that people would leave lying around the dorm during college. Still, if you’ve seen a few mainstream comic book movies you probably understand more than enough to get Watchmen and understand the cliches and things it’s distorting. Even if you didn’t I think it’s very enjoyable as a story on its own, and some of the artwork is amazing. Dr. Manhattan’s first appearance leaps off the page like nothing else I’ve ever seen, although granted, I already admitted I haven’t seen much.
A large part of Watchmen is holding a mirror up to the genre, but if that was all that was there it wouldn’t really be worth still remembering nearly 25 years after it was first written.
There are thing that will likely go over your head if you are not familiar with comics, but (and I hate to use the comparison because Alan Moore isn’t Shakespeare, but I have to pull from what I know) it isn’t any worse than if you go to see Richard III without knowing anything about Elizabethan age politics. Yes, some stuff will go over your head, but at the end of the day it is still a good story.
Maybe the better comparison is Citizen Kane. At the end of the day, Kane is an interesting movie about an interesting person with an engaging plot that tells a story well. It is also about William Randolf Hurst, but you don’t need to know that to appreciate what was being done in Kane. It also made huge leaps in how movies were made and how future film makers would think about movies, but you don’t need to know about any of that to appreciate Kane either.
At the end of the day, if you don’t like character studies about men who drive themselves to positions of power and end up being destroyed by their own hubris, you might not like Kane, and if you don’t know any of the above in addition to not liking those kinds of stories you might not appreciate Kane, but you don’t need to know any of that to “get” that it is a story well told.
So, all that being said.
The Watchmen is about a group of has-been superheros some of whom are still trying to be Superheros, many of whom have moved on to something else. It’s a character study with a minor little mystery akin to the mystery of Rosebud. It isn’t really important, but it’s a plot device. It can be introspective and it isn’t action packed or fast paced. It’s fairly dense for a comic book, and fairly wordy for a comic book. It also tries very hard to apply real world logic to the concept of the costumed hero and how those types of people would effect the real world and be effected by it in return. It looks at the type of people who would end up in those types of places if we lived in a world where costumed heros could be possilbe. If that sounds like it might be interesting, I say give it a shot.
My opinion: I think it is one of the best things ever done within the medium of sequential art. It’s up there with Maus, A Contract with God, and The Sandman in terms of just fantastic storytelling within that medium and using the medium to it’s fullest potential. There is some philosophy in it, but that isn’t what does it for me, I feel like I outgrew the philosophy of Alan Moore when I was in college. But for me there has never been a better character study in the medium of comics than The Watchmen.
I’m wandering the same this choie is. I don’t read comic books (but I do read webcomics), and aside from being a casual Batman fan, I’m not really into superhero stuff. But I’ve consistently heard good stuff about Watchmen from sources that do have an intersection with my interests.
What I also want to know is: should I read the comic before I see the movie, or will it make a difference?
Read the book. I’m looking forward to the movie and all, but the book is so good that I am on the verge of strangling my little brother, who keeps telling me he he doesn’t want to spend a few hours reading the book because he’ll be able to see the movie instead.
Incidentally, I can’t get a 16-year-old to read a comic book. What the hell is wrong with me?
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I can tell by advanced screening reactions…people who are familiar with the comic seem to like the movie a lot more than people who aren’t.
I’m sure there are references that I didn’t get and that it’s an even richer novel for those who are versed in the genre, but there was nothing I didn’t understand and my relative lack of superhero comic fluency (which wasn’t completely zero. I did read a few when I was a kid if they were laying around somewhere. I just never really collected them or geeked out on them) did not hinder my ability to appreciate the artistry or complexity of the story.
I think there are characters who are supposed to be analogues to or comments on superhero (and/or supervillain) characters who I don’t specifically know, and I’m sure that adds a little extra layer for a lot of readers, but the essential themes are not about the narrative minutae of the genre, but the broad outlines. I think the only way you;d be confused or lost is if you had absolutely no idea what a superhero was or had never heard of Batman or Superman. I suspect that the more you know of the genre, the richer it is, though.
I was in the same situation - everything I knew about superheroes was from movies and the cartoons. As I said in the other thread, I enjoyed it but was that impressed with it. I was never lost due to not reading comics or anything. It may not meet the hype, but it’s still worth a read, IMO.
Wow, thanks guys. This sounds extremely interesting and I’m encouraged by your descriptions of the book. I do like dark stuff and tales about corrupting power, even in or perhaps especially in fantasy; loved Section 31 in the Star Trek universe, for example, and I still think Dumbledore’s behavior in the HP series was repulsive and I’d have liked to see him go even darker. Not a fan of relentless darkness and gloom, but if it’s well-done and the story/characters justify it, I can get on board.
Is it a single book or a series? Are there sequels? Yes, I’m that ignorant. I guess a trip to Wikipedia is in order.
Erm, yeah, I’m not very up on current movies or award stuff, I must shamefacedly admit. Guess it was a stupid question. I’m just gobsmacked 'cause for like twenty years I’ve never heard of the guy doing much of anything. Which I’m sure says more about me than of JEH.
Can’t wait to hear that Mason Reese is up for a prize at Cannes!
ETA to Dio: Oh it’s not 'cause JEH isn’t a square-jawed hero-type, it’s just because I had no idea he’s had a comeback. I thought he faded out with some Porky’s-type movie twenty years ago.
I have my doubts that anything Alan Moore ever wrote can be well-adapted to the screen, but it will take only one good movie to refute this. Appreciating Watchmen requires only two things:
–A basic familiarity with the conceits of superhero comics (Costumes, presumed infallibility, the undercurrents of sexual kink, etc.)
–An openness to the possibility that there is something horribly wrong with the conceits of superhero comics
If you’re down with those two things, dig in and enjoy!
Don’t feel bad - your description of Jackie Earle Haley’s career is perfectly accurate up until about two years ago. At one point he was reduced to delivering pizzas.
I think this describes it pretty well and people should know this going into it (I wish I knew this going into it). Which makes me question why the movie looks like it’s being sold as an action/adventure flick. There’s not a whole lot of action/adventure going on in the novel. Lot’s of talking and retrospect.
BTW, I am reading Watchmen for a second time right now. It holds up very well, but there are parts of it that are kind of dated. But those don’t really affect the overall themes of the book.
My understanding is that the movie differs from the novel due to some sort of 9/11 sensibilities or something having to do with 9/11 changing the relevence of parts of the book, not sure what those are.
